Olympics

[Tiberius]

Your analogy is completely absurd. You don't own the sunshine, nor do you have any rights to the sunshine; it can't be taken away from you. Your claim implied that the people that already worked as stewards at venues had their jobs taken away for the duration of the Olympics. This is a lie because:

1) All stewards (and other workers) who were employed full-time before the Olympics continued their jobs during and after the Olympics.
2) Stewards who were employed for individual contract work (i.e. per event) aren't entitled to work at any event they feel like; it's up to the employers.

If there is a pool of 150 stewards that can be called up for work, but the event only requires 100 stewards, and the first 100 who apply get the work, it doesn't mean the 50 stewards left had their jobs taken away. In this case, the event required staff employed by companies like G4S. That doesn't mean G4S took the jobs of the regular workers; there were no "regular" workers for this event in the first place.

Now, move on. Next claim.

[jonb]

Britain is my country, do I therefore own Britain?

[Tiberius]

No, but you have right to be in Britain, and to be British. You don't have a right to sunshine.

You have rights when it comes to employment, but if you are only employed contractually, you do not have the same rights as a person who is employed full-time. These jobs were not your daughter's to have; she did not have them taken away from her. Simple as that. She has no legal case; you have no evidence for your claim, and your claim is 100% wrong.

Next? Please?

[jonb]

This is my country though,
Is it OK in your world, for a part time worker to say they have no job?
Is that your grandmother, and do you have the necessary certificates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApbpnIv13nQ

[Tiberius]

This is my country though,

Mine too.

Is it OK in your world, for a part time worker to say they have no job?

The part-time and contractual workers you speak of didn't lose their jobs. They still have them. Just because they didn't have work over a two-week period doesn't negate the fact that they still have a job. It's part-time; their part-time contracts are set up so that they only work when they are needed.

[jonb]

This is my country though,

Mine too.

Is it OK in your world, for a part time worker to say they have no job?

The part-time and contractual workers you speak of didn't lose their jobs. They still have them. Just because they didn't have work over a two-week period doesn't negate the fact that they still have a job. It's part-time; their part-time contracts are set up so that they only work when they are needed.

So they do not have the work for the duration then do they? The job is taken away.

[Tiberius]

So they do not have the work for the duration then do they? The job is taken away.

*sigh*

What part of this are you not getting? If Lords employs them based on events, and there aren't any events, they don't work. Are you arguing that their jobs get taken away every time Lords doesn't have an event on?

Face it; these people were hired to work for Lords at Lords events. The Olympics is not a Lords event (Lords is cricket, this was archery if I'm not mistaken), so there was no reason to hire them for it.

Seriously now. NEXT. There is no point arguing this one anymore; people reading this thread can easily see that you've provided no evidence for your claim, and of the little anecdotal evidence you did provide, I have easily refuted all of it against what you actually claimed. You are clearly not going to admit you were wrong with your initial claim, so what is the point of continuing this? Let's move to your next claim.

[jonb]

You have disproved nothing.

The word 'my' is not just restricted to legal title as you are trying to make it out to be.

Unless you can show that, my statement stands. And you have not disproved my statement, so man up.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Britain is my country, do I therefore own Britain?

You question reminds me of one the paradoxes from Zeno of Elea.."that dog is your father"

The paradox is based on two meanings of the word 'your' 'IE as a possession and as relationship:

'My car' is a possession.

I have a relationship with 'my country' but do not own it.

[Tiberius]

As I said, it is clear that you will not see reason here. That doesn't bother me anymore; the people who read this thread will judge it for themselves.

Are we going to move to your next claim or not?